On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 10:14 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> writes:
> > I'm curious about composite types in PostgreSQL. By default, when we
> > create a composite type, it utilizes the "record_in" and "record_out"
> > functions for input/output. Do you think it would be beneficial to
> > expand the syntax to allow users to specify custom input/output
> > functions when creating composite types?
>
> No.
>
> > I believe it would be beneficial because users creating a new type
> > might prefer to define specific input/output syntax rather than
> > conforming to what is accepted by the RECORD type.
>
Thanks for the quick response, Tom.
> The primary outcome would be to require a huge amount of new work
> to be done by a lot of software, much of it not under our control.
Yeah, I agree with that.
> And the impact wouldn't only be to software that would prefer not
> to know about this. For example, how likely do you think it is
> that these hypothetical user-defined I/O functions would cope
> well with ALTER TABLE/ALTER TYPE commands that change those
> rowtypes?
That's a good point. I was primarily focused on altering the
representation of input and output values, rather than considering
changes to internal storage. However, offering this feature could
indeed allow users to influence how values are stored. And that can
potentially affect ALTER TYPE because then we do not have control over
how those values are stored internally.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com